Memeorandum

July 29, 2014

The Funniest Thing You Will Read Today

The reliably partisan Greg Sargent of the WaPo ponders the possible scope as well as the legal and political landscape around Obama's impending executive action on immigration. He delivers this punchline:

Morning Plum: How far can Obama go to ease deportations?

...

But in the end, I hope the administration makes its decision based solely on what it genuinely determines is legally, rather than politically, possible.

My goodness. With this level of detachment from reality I marvel that Mr. Sargent can find his keyboard in the morning.

OF COURSE the final decision will be determined by the politics. And as to legality, by way of contrast Obama could pardon every person ever convicted junder federal law of marijuana possession, or cocaine trafficking, or human trafficking by late this afternoon. That would surely be legal - does Mr. Sargent hope Obama does it simply because it is legal? Or would it be OK for Obama to weigh political factors in that context?

Yes, Mr. Sargent is talking about prosecutorial discretion frather than executive pardons but the point is the same - the primary constraint on the executive is political rather than legal, which means the politics can not be ignored.

Sorry if this was linked already, but via Tim Blair (who notes that Iowahawk is moving from the 17th scariest to the 3rd scariest state), this is a nice piece of research. I particularly like how clowns and dentists are two of the categories.

Don't know if this will work for you but the home page of The Daily Mail has a Top Banner Advert or a Comedy Central show called "Nathan for You". But the lead story right below it is about another Nathan - the creep who killed Amanda Hernendez.

That list is a little suspect.
HI #1 in volcanoes? They have one or two active ones and all they do is dribble lava into the sea. WA, OR, CA and especially AK all have several that tend to blow up with the power of several hydrogen bombs.
And no earthquake or wild fire column?
Finally, I bow to no one in our rogues gallery of clowns.
Come on, CA is better than #7!

Perhaps Israeli moonbats have spent a few moments contemplating being hostages themselves or having loved ones held as hostages by United Headchoppers? They might even have considered the probable response by the UN and President Hussein.

I think Israel should give Sisi a shot at killing Hamas members for a couple of weeks to give the IDF a little break. He's doing well with the MB tweeters in Egypt and might enjoy a Hamas rat hunt in Gaza.

You don't dig serial killers out of the dustbin of time and try to tie them to politicians. It was disgraceful when Republican Vice Presidential candidate Palin tried to pin the charge of "pallin' around with terrorists" on Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama because of his acquaintance with Bill Ayers, a one-time member of the radical Weather Underground, a Vietnam protest group.

Moore herself was rightly offended by this pandering to fear and partisanship.

"Sarah Palin continues to infer Democrat Barack Obama is 'palling around with terrorists' and doesn’t see the U.S. like other Americans," Moore wrote. "(Palin) emphasizes, 'He’s pallin’ around with terrorists who would target their own country!' Barack Hussein Obama is repeated over and over at McCain rallies and even on local Anchorage right-wing talk shows. They are trying to invoke a terrorist fear in voters. It is a dangerous and unfounded connection."

Southern dialects and standard American English... I cannot stop giggling.

The notice said the class would cover "some of the most common pronunciation and grammatical differences between Southern dialects and standard American English."

It added: "In this course you will learn to recognize the pronunciation and grammar differences that make your speech sound Southern, and learn what to do so you can neutralize it through a technique called code-switching."

--Sarah Palin continues to infer Democrat Barack Obama is 'palling around with terrorists'--

Whoever Moore is she's just not that smart. (do I have to recognize the trademark if applied to someone else?)
Palin was neither inferring nor implying he palled around with terrorists. She stated it (accurately) as a plain fact.

Not only that, from the accounts of the trial it seemed that there was a lot of doubt about what happened. One would think a successful lawsuit would require more conclusive evidence. A sensible judge would set this aside, unless the defense witnesses were totally lacking in credibility, which is possible.

Doubt it's done.
The jury, hell even Ventura's lawyer, didn't sound like they had met their burden of proof.
Suspect the judge will reduce it and if Kyle's widow appeals I suspect she'll have a decent chance of getting it overturned.

--So Ventura--who never heard a shot fired in anger--sticks the widow of a genuine hero for $1.8 Million.--

His lawyer claimed Kyle made him a pariah in the SEAL community.
What's he think suing a SEAL's widow is gonna do?
He'll be lucky if they don't have him barking, clapping his flippers and balancing a ball on his nose if he ever shows his face around any now.

My point was not about the SEAL community but every other type of community that views JV as a buffoon. In this case, maybe it's just lyle's community of one, TK. I have a ton of respect for SEALs; I have none for Ventura despite it.

Although I suppose I could derivatively benefit from it, there is an odd and mistaken assumption roaming around here that lawyers and not the clients control the nature and direction of litigation. It may well happen from time to time in car wreck cases, but never where there is a modestly engaged client.

My point was not about the SEAL community but every other type of community that views JV as a buffoon.

I wonder if the defense tried that line of argument: "Nothing Kyle said could have made you out to be more of a buffoon than you already are." Or, in a Judge Nelson-style catch-22, "This lawsuit makes you out to be a bigger buffoon than anything Kyle could have said about you. Case dismissed."

The setting for the event was a wake honoring Mike Mansoor, held at McP's Irish Pub in Coronado, a SEAL hangout. The owner, Greg McPartlin, is a well-decorated former SEAL (and the former husband of my niece). Ventura was not invited: as I understand it he happened to be in town for some other function. The remark attributed to him was "you deserve to lose a few," or something similar.

I don't know what the eyewitness testimony was, but such a remark would not be out of character for Ventura, who has variously denounced Bush, the Iraq war and the United States.

His name is mud among the SEALs, and it will take a hell of a lot more than this verdict to clear his name.

If she has the bucks to see it through, I like the widow's chances on appeal.

I have no problem with Ventura's lawyer. I have a real problem with Kyle's lawyer agreeing to a less than unanimous verdict. Of course if it went the other way I would not be complaining about that at all.

In his deposition, Mr. Kyle said Mr. Ventura had indeed made such comments, and that Mr. Kyle had ended the conversation by punching Mr. Ventura as he described in the book. Several witnesses for Mr. Kyle said that they had overheard the former governor’s negative comments or had seen him on the ground following an altercation, while witnesses for Mr. Ventura said they saw no such confrontation that night.

Not sure how that constitutes "clear and convincing evidence" in Ventura's favor.

--I wonder if the defense tried that line of argument: --

The jurors were presented an array of statements Mr. Ventura made on topics like religion and war over many years, and defense lawyers suggested that his reputation was already deeply complicated.

--I have a real problem with Kyle's lawyer agreeing to a less than unanimous verdict.--

I don't understand that either. If you're the defendant you have a lot more to lose if it goes the wrong way than the plaintiff.

He's a wretched Strigoi, I think I've even seen his stinger once, Craig Unger, really hit
the big time, with a libelous slam at Robert McFarlane, where the latter was accused of not only being involved with the 'October Surprise'
idiocy, but being an Israeli spy.

In CA, as I recall an insurer is required to defend the case (pay for the lawyers) if the plaintiff alleges any covered claim, e.g. negligence, in addition to the intentional tort. My guess is that Ventura's only claim was defamation.

Ventura was a terrible wrestler and, for somebody who had a nickname of "The Body", had a huge boiler. For all the roids he did, the only part of his physique that it looked like he worked on were his biceps (Mrs H once met him through work and said they were huge). I doubt that he spent much time in the gym at all.

His announcing was really dumb but I think his broadcast partner, Gorilla Monsoon, liked working with him because he made so many outlandish statements that it made his work a lot easier. The only thing he did that I thought was funny would be have fake "feuds" with some of the more chiseled wrestlers like Ivan Putzki and Tony Atlas; he'd make snarky comments about them while they were in the ring after which they'd flex and invite Jesse to come into the ring while he'd be blathering away.

I wanted to like him when he became governor of Minnesota but he was a complete train wreck. I really have to question the sanity of the jurors to take an ego laden clown like that seriously.

Underwater Demolition Teams (UDT) were established in 1942, their principal mission being reconnaissance and obstacle-clearing in connection with amphibious operations. They trained at the Naval Amphibious Base in Coronado and were known as Frogmen.

The SEALs were established in 1962, per JFK's fascination with Special Ops. They train at the same facility, and get all of the UDT training plus a whole lot more, e.g. in a wide variety of weaponry. The course is known as BUD/S, for Basic UDT/SEAL. They also go through extensive post-Coronado training such as jump school.

Ventura was a Frogman. However, at some point (I think in the 80s) the navy issued a directive that all former UDT guys were retroactively classified as SEALs, and could rightfully use the term to describe themselves. But I carry around in my head an asterisk for those who got the title that way.

If "scruff face" was identified by Kyle, on O'Reilly Factor, as some SEAL we have never heard of, and the identification led to that SEAL's shunning from the community based off the perception that he thought some SEALs needed to die, would we be cursing the SEAL that wished to have his name cleared?

Doesn't the burden of proof fall on the person making the defaming claim? If he can't prove the incident happened should the judgment of the unknown SEAL be determined by other incidents rather than the one that caused the stir in the first place?

It seems to me that a courtroom shouldn't conduct its affairs in a manner similar to a popularity contest.